Since I think the HOF is complete crap anyway, it's not something I ponder.

As a fan, I want to see a guy doing his best. If he finds an edge, I'm fine with it.

Not sure you understand HGH. It's a "safer" form of steroids in that it helps you recover quicker. There are some fat-burning qualities in it. I've even read that it helps with eyesight. Being able to work out harder, burn more fat and see better definitely allows you to perform better.

I don't know your age or activity level but your body changes at some point. It slows the production of HGH because you're not supposed to keep growing. Bringing in HGH from the outside can get you back to your previous levels or beyonds. It repairs damaged tissue. The lack of it is why older people get sore doing **** they've done all their lives with no problem.

Like steroids, it doesn't make you a better baseball player. But it helps you maintain or increase your level of fitness. And that can make you a better baseball player. In effect, you're battling Father Time but you've got some help.

also, if there is any player that could easily convince himself he was not doing anything wrong, it is Clemens......I find it 100% plausible that he feels he did nothing in the wrong and simply found a way to kickstart his own ability to succeed with hard work

his workouts were notoriously strenuous and his massive ego coupled with his limited intellect would make it easy for him to give credit to himself for finding another gear on his own ('sure I took a vitamin and now I'm working out harder, but I'd be working out harder without it anyway')

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2012 9:48:00 AM (view original):FWIW, Clemens does not strike me as a MENSA member.

McNamee: OK, Roger, I'm going to change your injections. I'm gonna start using...
Clemens: Goddammit, Brian, I don't give a **** about the details. Will it help me be better?
McNamee: Yeah, it probably will. But you need to know...
Clemens: Don't ******* tell me what I need to know. I need to know if it wil help me regain my fastball. You said it would. That's what the **** I need to know. Now do it.

If I remember correctly, MLB didn't start suspending players for steroid/HGH use until 2005 (I'm sure someone will fact-check me on that) - before that, they didn't want you to do it but if there's no penalty for doing something there's no way you can say it's wrong. So, anyone juicing before 2005 was playing within the rules.

I think of it like aluminum bats. Say that aluminum bats were used, but discouraged, until 2005; then, in 2005, they were officially banned and you got suspended for using them. Would all players who used aluminum bats before 2005 be ineligible for the Hall?

Posted by pinotfan on 6/21/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):If I remember correctly, MLB didn't start suspending players for steroid/HGH use until 2005 (I'm sure someone will fact-check me on that) - before that, they didn't want you to do it but if there's no penalty for doing something there's no way you can say it's wrong. So, anyone juicing before 2005 was playing within the rules.

I think of it like aluminum bats. Say that aluminum bats were used, but discouraged, until 2005; then, in 2005, they were officially banned and you got suspended for using them. Would all players who used aluminum bats before 2005 be ineligible for the Hall?

It was specifically banned in 1991. There was no test or penalty, but using steroids was against the rules, not just discouraged.

If a player broke the rules of baseball, he shouldn't be in the HOF. Or, at the very least, his indiscretions should be noted on his plaque. A Scarlett Letter so to speak.

Whether or not there was a punishment in place is irrelevant. You aren't keeping them out of the hall because they were suspended. You're keeping them out because they broke the rules and cheated to gain an edge.

Steroids were specifically banned in 1991. They were against the rules, punishment or not.